Hancock Park District

[HancockCountyHAl]

It was a nice day. I open carried at a local park and ran across a sign with park rules. No problems except for a Frizbee Golf player whose eyes got as big as dinner plates.
Anyone in an official position want to tackle this?

Hancock Park District Headquarters
1424 East Main Cross Street
Findlay, Ohio 45840
Telephone: 419-425-PARK(7275)

Rules:
Item 11 Firearms, weapons, Prohibition

Have any firearms, weapons,
explosives, or harmful devices,
except those being carried by law
enforcement officers, hunters
participating in a HPD hunting
program or Concealed Carry
Permit holders.

http://www.hancockparks.com/LinkClick.a ... &tabid=781" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[charben]

It was a nice day. I open carried at a local park and ran across a sign with park rules. No problems except for a Frizbee Golf player whose eyes got as big as dinner plates.
Anyone in an official position want to tackle this?

Hancock Park District Headquarters
1424 East Main Cross Street
Findlay, Ohio 45840
Telephone: 419-425-PARK(7275)

Rules:
Item 11 Firearms, weapons, Prohibition

Have any firearms, weapons,
explosives, or harmful devices,
except those being carried by law
enforcement officers, hunters
participating in a HPD hunting
program or Concealed Carry
Permit holders.

http://www.hancockparks.com/LinkClick.a ... &tabid=781" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah...another district that thinks they meet the requirements of the law by providing an exception to Concealed Handgun License holders.

By the way, I moved this to the appropriate forum...

[charben]

Email sent:

Hello!

A member of my organization has brought one of your park rules to my attention. Specifically, Rule number 11 states that firearms are prohibited unless (among other exemptions) being carried by Concealed Handgun License holders.

The wording of this rule has been a common mistake made by park districts and other government entities in an attempt to comply with Concealed Carry laws. While it is true that Concealed Handgun License holders cannot be prohibited from carrying their firearms in parks, it is also true that people without licenses who lawfully carry their firearms openly also cannot be prohibited. As such, this rule is in violation of ORC 9.68 because the way the rule is worded would prohibit the lawful “open carry” of firearms in the parks.

If you have any questions about this, I would be happy to discuss it with you.

Sincerely,

[charben]

The reply:

Christopher – Thank you for your contact and information. We are currently looking into this matter and will make the necessary revisions as part of an overall review of our park rules and regulations.

Have a good day!

Margie Stateler
Visitor Services Manager

[charben]

More communication:

Thank you Margie. Is there a particular time frame that this normally takes?

Again, if you need any help or have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I am in Findlay often!

SIncerley,

Christopher L. Harben

Christopher - As a whole, it will be a lengthy process involving several months. However, with this particular issue, Board review and approval may occur on April 10 at the earliest and June 12 at the latest. The law needs to be checked against our current rules and regulations and then the section will be rewritten, verified by an attorney, and approved by the Board.

Hope this answers your question.

Margie

Thanks for the insight. I understand that it is tough for organizations like park districts to keep up with the changes in law. I have often wished that there was some mechanism (like the AG’s office) that would send out an alert of some sort to any affected agency when a law changes.

I would suggest that whatever can be done to expedite the change is in the best interest of the Board since ORC 9.68 has been law for a couple of years now.

Thanks for the communication and I look forward to being available to you in any way that I can.

Sincerely,

Christopher L. Harben

[Brian D.]

Well Chris it's good to see that you put them on notice. However (and yeah you know my take on this already) I've never really bought into the notion that these political entities are that behind with regard to changes in Ohio law. Be they village, city, township, or county, they have one or more attorneys in their employ, who usually also have budgetary means to hire other shys...uh, lawyers as needed to assist them with understanding various areas of law.

Between the elected legal counsel and their hired advisors, I just don't see how changes to the ORC or OAC slip past them so consistently when it comes to firearms rights.

[charben]

Well Chris it's good to see that you put them on notice. However (and yeah you know my take on this already) I've never really bought into the notion that these political entities are that behind with regard to changes in Ohio law. Be they village, city, township, or county, they have one or more attorneys in their employ, who usually also have budgetary means to hire other shys...uh, lawyers as needed to assist them with understanding various areas of law.

Between the elected legal counsel and their hired advisors, I just don't see how changes to the ORC or OAC slip past them so consistently when it comes to firearms rights.

Understood. Since I was emailing the monkey and not the organ grinder, I thought I'd try to gain a little "alliance" with her by showing some empathy. However, I did "re-reply" to my last reply to clarify that ORC 9.68's effective date was March of 2007. Hint Hint Hint...

[MuzzleReport]

Thanks for working on this Chris.

[HancockCountyHAl]

Thanks Chris. I appreciate you getting involved.

[Fonejack54]

As I was reading the correspondence it occured to me that stating expedition of compliance might avert a false arrest lawsuit would be a good carrot to dangle. These people appear to need some incentive to speed up their processes.

[charben]

As I was reading the correspondence it occured to me that stating expedition of compliance might avert a false arrest lawsuit would be a good carrot to dangle. These people appear to need some incentive to speed up their processes.

I completely disagree with this approach. I don't like to mention legal action very early on because that tends to actually slow things down as people get defensive. As of today, I am happy we have gotten a good result:

From an email I received today:

Christopher,

I’ve considered your comments, consulted with an attorney, and continued to revise language. The attached revised Rule #11 will be recommended to the Board of Park Commissioners at its May meeting. I hope you’ll agree that there is no language in the rewrite that prohibits or otherwise discourages the lawful open carry of a firearm in the park.

The new wording of the rule compared to the old:

Rules & Regulations #11 Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
Weapons Rule #11 (current):
11. Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
It is unlawful to . . .
• Have any firearms, weapons, explosives, or harmful devices, except those being carried by law enforcement officers, hunters participating in a HPD hunting program or Concealed Carry Permit Holders.

Weapons Rule #11 (recommended):
11. Firearms, Weapons, Explosives, Harmful Devices
It is unlawful to . . .
• Carry or possess a concealed deadly weapon, firearm, explosive or explosive device, incendiary device, or dangerous ordnance while in the park or on a trail that is not allowable per state law. (O.R.C. §2923.11 through §2923.1213)

[Tweed Ring]

Typically, once the term lawyer is mentioned to lay people, the lay people immediately lawyer-up.

[Tourist]

Chris,

While the new wording is technically correct, it still seems to me that they are trying not to "give in". You know and I know that open carry is legal, and concealed carry is only legal with a CHL, but the new wording refers to the CHL law and skirts the open carry restriction, while implying to the uninformed that handguns are not legal in the park. I also note that by the rules of English I was taught, concealed only applies to deadly weapons, not firearms, so It could be read to still ban firearms.

It is probably all we can get, but it just shows how some anti-gun people will still try even when it is apparent that they have an illegal opinion.

Kind of like calling someone an idiot, and when forced to apologize say "I am sorry you are an idiot".

[charben]

I did suggest that they add a reference to ORC 9.68 (C) (1) since the cited code does not cover open carry.

Tourist, I think you are reading much too much into it.

[Cruiser]

I did suggest that they add a reference to ORC 9.68 (C) (1) since the cited code does not cover open carry.

Tourist, I think you are reading much too much into it.

Why not take the wording from the famous CPZ sign put out by the State that does not apply to us!
"unless authorized by law"